Quote:
Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates
A large amount of the damage is in the North where Israel had told everyone to leave, so wouldn't children have vacated those areas first?
I know Isreal has also bombed in the South too and IMO have certainly gone way overboard in their attacks.
But I do think the reported children number is likely inflated considering how much of the damage is in areas children should have been evacuated first.
The death toll shouldn't be proportionate to normal population numbers since populations start to move out of warzones.
|
Not necessarily, for a lot of reasons:
-Some people didn't evacuate, because they probably figured they'd be safer at home with supplies rather than walking through a war zone and ending up in a refugee camp that may or may not be safer.
-families with young children are generally less mobile than ones without children or individual adults. Who's going to have an easier time walking 20km to evacuate to the south, a couple of 25 year olds, or a family with several children under the age of 5?
-A lot of the deaths occurred early on, before anyone had really begun to evacuate.
All of those things can lead to the demographics in the heaviest fighting zones remaining relatively similar to the country's demographics. That, combined with the level of destruction that's occurring means that high levels of children/youth deaths shouldn't be too surprising.